Re: Clarification of GPL
Abe Kornelis scripsit: The nearest analogy from literature I can think of at the moment is X being a grammar text book and Y my essay, which conforms to grammar in that text book. Is my essay a derivative of the grammar book? Example is too far-fetched. What if Y were a separate book with extensive treatment of the exercises presented in X ?? Indeed, such a book exists: the _C Answer Book_, by Tondo and Gimpel, provides answers to the exercises in _The C Programming Language_, by Kernighan and Richie. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan The exception proves the rule. Dimbulbs think: Your counterexample proves my theory. Latin students think 'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts the rule to the proof. But legal historians know it means Evidence for an exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond scripsit: My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy circles? That's not a question, it's an argument. Try next door. Insofar as it really is a question, the answer is the same as for all Why do they? questions: money. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from _The Warrior's Apprentice_ by Lois McMaster Bujold: Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one. English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Public domain mistake?
daniel wallace scripsit: Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are: (1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable reliance on a promise made by the promisor; (2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on the promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person; Since public licenses are promises to everyone, I should think the elements of #2 would be hard to establish in any particular case. When I license my work, I don't *know* that you rely on my promises, since I don't know you at all. If there exists a mistaken presumption of law (not material fact) which preempts or voids an open source license agreement and the source code has been widely distributed under that license, the copyrighted code permissions would exist in the public domain for all practical purpose. Anyone who could show they had invested time and effort in reliance on promised copyright permissions could claim promissory estoppel to continue developing and expanding projects into the future. It looks to me like this would protect you against an attempt to revoke a GPL license in bad faith; but it's far from clear to me that it would give you full rights to the work beyond what the GPL allows. IANAL, TINLA. -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclichttp://www.reutershealth.com graphs; you have a right to be here.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
daniel wallace scripsit: When you impose a condition on another person's exclusive legal rights you are asking that person to wave a legal right. After all, the right is exclusive and no one may impose a condition without that person's concious agreement to waive that right. Very good. But the maker of the derivative work is in no position to attack the GPL, for absent the GPL he has no license to the original work at all. At best, as I said, he could claim that the original owner is estopped from changing from the GPL to a more restrictive license or withdrawing it altogether, at least as regards his rights. Which is a Good Thing. In order to secure the modifying author's permission to distribute his work in the derivative copyright work, a binding legal form must be implimented. You said that before, but as far as I can see there is no warrant for it. The right to distribute (as opposed to the right to create) derivative works is not one of the enumerated exclusive rights; it belongs fully to the (licensed) creator of the derivative work. -- Andrew Watt on Microsoft: John Cowan Never in the field of human computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] has so much been paid by so manyhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act supports the GPL
Russell McOrmond scripsit: If I take a Hollywood movie, create a laugh track where I think something funny happened, it is not my right to distribute the new combined work. Nobody disputes that. But Daniel is claiming that if you *do* in fact have permission to create the movie + laugh track, that you *also* then need further permission to distribute it. I deny this. Once you have lawfully prepared your derivative work, you may distribute it on your own terms; what the GPL does is prevent your work from being licensed if you distribute it other than under the GPL, making the creation of the derivative work not lawful. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves. --Murray Gell-Mann -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
daniel wallace scripsit: The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a ''new version'' covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. Indeed. Which is as much to say that multiple derivative works can exist from a single original without interfering with each others' copyrights, and a derivative work made from a public domain work does not prevent other people from making their own derivative works from the same P.D. work. license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- John Cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law in his own words -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Ken Brown scripsit: I think Daniel makes an interesting point. But let me ask since you emailed me your conversations. Who is the original owner of Linux? Well (to be Clintonesque), that depends on what you mean by Linux. I'll assume you mean the kernel. It also depends on whether a court views Linux as a derivative work (in which case the original owner is Linus, questionless), a joint work, or a collective work. My guess would be that it's one of the latter two possibilities. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute (Finnegans Wake 16.5) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Ryan Ismert scripsit: It seems to me that what Russell is suggesting (or what one could suggest, even if Russell is not) is that the condition being imposed is not in fact a condition on an exclusive right -- the distribution of a derivative work--, as Daniel holds, but rather a condition on the permission to create derivative works in the first place. I agree with this characterization completely, and assert that there is no such exclusive right to distribute derivative works (or rather that there is such a right, but it's the maker of the derivative work who has it). -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Unilateral permissions in license law.
daniel wallace scripsit: A unilateral permission can be granted only for something in which the grantor has some legal right. A grantor's unilateral permission by it's very definition can have no effect on the exclusive rights of another person distinct from the grantor. Very true. When dealing with derivative works, a unilateral permission from an authorizing author can have no effect on the newly vested copyright for the new material added by the modifying author. Fortunately, no copyleft license attempts to do this. The mechanism instead is to grant permission to *create* the derivative work only on the condition that the derivative work's author distribute the derivative work (if at all) only under the copyleft license. Failure to do so is not a breach of contract, since there is none, but it *is* copyright infringement, since the condition was not met and the derivative work was not lawfully created. Do you see the cat yet? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves. --Murray Gell-Mann -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Rod Dixon scripsit: In addition to the point made, you might inquire whether what a machine does when compiling code is an apt comparison to what an individual does when translating text. My answer is no since machines cannot be authors under Copyright law. Questionless. But machines don't compile code, people use machines to compile code. Similarly, you can use the GIMP to colorize a photograph (thus creating a derivative work), but that does not make the colorized photograph the product of a mere mechanical process. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions exclusive to the copyright holder, a copyright holder could go to court and use the copyright rights to overcome the impediment - that would be an exercise of an affirmative right. In that case, please give an example of what you do consider an affirmative right. As I am not aware of an example of a copyright holder exercising a right in such a way, I continue to find it most helpful to think of copyright as a negative right. No one can quarrel with what it is that you find most helpful. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You need a change: try Canada You need a change: try China --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: - rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as relating to free speech; Well, very good. Let's take free speech and plug it into your explication of affirmative rights: If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions constituting free speech, a speaker could go to court and use the free speech rights to overcome the impediment - that would be an exercise of an affirmative right. But you cannot go to court and overcome the impediment that prevents you (to be maximally cliche-ridden) from shouting Fire in a crowded theatre. So it might be that you call a right affirmative if in *some* circumstances you can get a court to overcome a hindrance from exercising them. But then consider this hypo: Alice gets an T.R.O. (a hindrance par excellence) to prevent Bob from making copies of the book _Cryptography for Idiots_. Bob goes to court and proves that by a transfer of copyright ownership, he is the copyright owner of _CfI_ and therefore has the right under Section 106 (a) to reproduce the copyrighted work. Surely this right is affirmative? -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your valuesCheck your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: iii. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately track usage of released software for documentation and benefits realized?purposes. See 3.F. Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of licensees to do anything they want internally with open source software (e.g., make copies, derivative works, etc.). On the other hand, because of reciprocity (see my further comment below) you'll be able to see improvements to NASA software that are distributed by others, and benefit from them. That will be measurable. Note the wording requires an effort to accurately track. It is the effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the draft NOSA requests rather than requires users to register with NASA. -- They tried to pierce your heartJohn Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you wouldhttp://www.reutershealth.com become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord. --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why the GPL is invalid.
daniel wallace scripsit: *sigh* In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting Preparing is what B does, not what A does. There was a meeting of the minds so Author A and Author B are in privity... they are not strangers to each other (in the legal sense). The GPL is not a contract, inter alia, because there is no meeting of the minds; indeed, A may be utterly unaware of B's existence. Author B now has all the permissions required to copy (distribute) the derivative work and he does so. This is a perfectly valid contract except for one problem... it requires modifying Author B to distribute the derivative work with the condition added that: It's not a contract, and contracts don't modify the contracting parties -- unless, indeed, they are contracts for plastic surgery. Author A says to Author C you're infringing on my copyrights in my original preexisting work. You must live up to the terms of the GPL license which I originally used to grant permission... but unfortunately Author A and Author C are, in the legal sense, total strangers. True if misstated: A can't sue for infringement of his copyright in this case. But B can sue for infringement of her copyright. This citation alone implies that as a contract the GPL contains an invalid term. That would be a sound argument if the GPL were a contract, perhaps, but it isn't a contract. This is what confounds analysis of the GPL. It's a perfectly innocent looking contract It's not a contract. Since the GPL contains a term that purports to abolish privity requirements for third parties, it may be ruled invalid as a contract before the court ever proceeds to the stage of examination under section 301 preemption. It doesn't purport to be a contract; it purports to be a bare license with conditions. No conditions met, no license; no license, no right to make derivative works. Simple. As simple as conditional permission to enter onto A's land: violate the condition, the permission goes bye-bye, and you're a trespasser. IANAL (which is not a confession of ignorance) and TINLA (luckily for me). -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan You cannot enter here. Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go! --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Mark W. Alexander scripsit: By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject government works to foreign copyright authority. Well, I'm with you up to the last sentence. But by acceding to the Berne Convention, which is part of the supreme law of the land, on all fours with the Constitution and federal legislation, we do indeed subject ourselves to foreign copyright authority. Now a work can uncontroversially be in the public domain in one place and copyrighted in another: Australia's on life+50, the U.S. rule is everything after 1923 (with the exception of U.S. government works and a few others). Thus certain works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sinclair Lewis, and Margaret Mitchell among many other Americans are still in copyright in the U.S. but not in Australia. But all those works were once in Australian copyright. The question is, can a work which is born into the public domain in its country of origin be in copyright anywhere at any time? The conflict of laws is an ugly and rather primitive subject (my father wrote an article about it once). -- You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com vaccinated with a phonograph needle. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: U.S. government works in other countries
Richard Schilling scripsit: The WTO countries are supposed to recognize US copyright, as the US is supposed to recognize the IP of the other WTO countries. Easier said then done, but it's there. Indeed. But are the Berne countries supposed to recognize our *non*-copyrights? The U.S. as an act of sovereign dominion prevents a U.S. entity, namely itself, from receiving copyright protection within its sovereign domain. Will other countries treat the work as copyright in their domains nevertheless, especially if the U.S. claims that it is? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the distinction compilation-vs-derivative is rather obvious. Whereas I think the distinction is very subtle and full of borderline cases, of which the native executable is just one. First thing you learn when you're in a lawin' family is that there ain't any definite answers to anything. --Harper Lee, _To Kill A Mockingbird_ -- Well, I'm back. --SamJohn Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit: Article 5(3) of the BC says: The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights ... shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Article 7(1) puts the duration of protection at life+50, but article 5(1) states that an author enjoys longer protection in countries that have a longer term. Thanks; that looks definitive. So a U.S. government work is born into the public domain in the U.S., but is in copyright for 50 years after its publication date in Australia. Amazing. So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with impunity, but not so Australians. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute (Finnegans Wake 16.5) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Richard Schilling scripsit: Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. If you think that's the entire purpose of the GPL, you haven't read it. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. As a matter of observable fact, being a lawyer or a nonlawyer has nothing to do with the constructiveness of one's input to this list. Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing some detailed analysis. I hope opensource.org pays attention to that and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick. At present, they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a judge. You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue, and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to relicense PD works? You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan You cannot enter here. Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go! --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must misunderstand what public domain means, then. Oh yes, you can do that. But the derivative work must be genuinely a derivative work, and not just a minor touch-up of the public-domain original. -- They tried to pierce your heartJohn Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you wouldhttp://www.reutershealth.com become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord. --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit: It appears that with US government created works that every US citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work, Not so. See my other posting. Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different in different countries (A Disney production gets 95 years in the USA but fortunately only 50 years in Canada), are the other methods to enter into the public domain also country specific? Yes. U.S. government works are P.D. in the U.S., but Canadian government works appear not to be so in Canada, and U.K. government works are definitely copyrighted by the Crown. In addition, there are country-specific rights: for example, a Canadian performer in Canada has a right in the nature of copyright over his unrecorded performance (it can't be imitated or recorded without a license), whereas in the U.S. nothing that is not fixed in a tangible medium can be the object of copyright. It was always my understanding that a work that was released into the public domain by its author (Such as by a public domain dedication http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ ) in the USA or any other country that this work was instantaneously in the public domain in all countries. Seemingly not. -- Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan wise wives welcome the spring [EMAIL PROTECTED] by moving the Unix. http://www.reutershealth.com --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) http://www.ccil.org/~cowan (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit: If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US citizens do not, then does NASA? Why, because NASA, through its employees who actually write the works, is the author. The Berne Convention gives rights to the authors of foreign works (relative to the country where the Convention is being applied), not to randoms in those countries who had nothing to do with the creation of the work. Does the concept of there being a copyright holder outside of the USA make sense when US legislation says that the US government creator does not receive copyright inside the USA? Just as much as the notion that _Steamboat Willie_ has a copyright holder in the U.S. but not in Canada. Different countries treat this differently. In Canada you can waive your moral rights, but cannot transfer them. The Berne Convention forces all participants to recognize a limited subset of moral rights, and the U.S. hews closely to that definition: thus the creators of works of visual art have moral rights, but writers, poets, and programmers do not. Nevertheless, I write on some of my programs the sentence John Cowan claims the moral right to be recognized as the author of this work. My government will not enforce this right for me, but I claim it anyway. If the phrase public domain means not protected by copyright, then the actual meaning of the public domain changes in every country as copyright is different in every country. Not the meaning, but rather the contents, of the public domain is indeed country-specific. -- Well, I'm back. --SamJohn Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of creativity in the derivative work is sufficient to actually create a new copyrightable work. If not, that so-called derivative work will be an uncopyrightable public domain work too. I agree that that is the issue, though your wording is better than mine. Brian can't just take an arbitrary piece of public domain software (for concreteness, let us take the TZ library, whose author is one Arthur David Olson, a U.S. government employee) and slap a Copyright 2004 Brian Behlendorf on it: that would be fraudulent, though admittedly it's not clear to me who would have standing to sue. He could, however, do what the FSF has done: create a derivative work like GNU libc, which incorporates code originally written by Olson, and put his own copyright and license on that. -- You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com vaccinated with a phonograph needle. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit: If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US citizens do not, then does NASA? Why, because NASA, through its employees who actually write the works, is the author. Like other forms of work for hire, the employer (The United States Government) would be the copyright holder if there was copyright. In this case the employer has released the works into the public domain via legislation. Just so. NASA is the author, but the works are born in the public domain in the U.S. (but apparently not elsewhere). I believe that first-copyright should only exist for natural persons, and that any transfer of copyright to an employer (natural person or corporation), if it happens at all, should be negotiated as part of an employment agreement or other legal document. Effectively it's just an implicit term in such an agreement. It is already possible to contract out of it by explicit language. Just as much as the notion that _Steamboat Willie_ has a copyright holder in the U.S. but not in Canada. You will need to provide a reference here. I was referring to the notorious 1928 film starring Mickey Mouse. This work seems to be P.D. in Canada under the 50-year provision for cinematographic works, but is very much in copyright in the U.S. -- A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev] Your verse would be sweeterhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan If it only had metrehttp://www.reutershealth.com And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan. [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Rodent of Unusual Size writes: i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to submit it for osi approval. it's online at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 and i'm attaching the text version to this message. it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl to boot. +1 -- The man that wanders far[EMAIL PROTECTED] from the walking tree http://www.reutershealth.com --first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Mark Shewmaker scripsit: So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL, but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have been revoked. That's equivalent to the case where Program_C requires Patent_Q held by Person_Q for which Person_C has no license. Program_C is not usable by Person_C although properly distributed to him. The fact that Person_C's license to Patent_A is being revoked because of a patent-defense clause is interesting, but I don't see how it's specially relevant. (IANAL, TINLA, as usual.) Person_B is also stuck--he can't distribute Program_B under the GPL anymore to anyone, because he's not allowed to distribute it to Person_C due to a lack of a patent license for Patent_A. Sure he can distribute it to Person_C; Person_C just can't use what he gets. The GPL doesn't restrict me from distributing to you because you can't (due to some legal disability) use the program, any more than I am restricted from distributing CP/M programs to you under the GPL just because you don't have a Z80 machine to run them on. In fact, looking at this from before Person_C starts a lawsuit, you can think of things from the point of view that in order for Person_[BC] to (continue to) have GPL-rights to Program_[ABC], Person_C is required to refrain from suing Person_A for patent infringement. The GPL rights of Person_[BC] are not altered, merely the use right of Person_C to Program_C. So would the requirement-not-to-sue be an additional requirement that would be counter to the GPL in the first place? No, or at least not on this line of reasoning. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All isms should be wasms. --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inform for CUA Office Public License
Patranun Limudomporn scripsit: I'd like to inform all of you that our project has been place a CUA Office Public License (CPL) on our project website now at http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/CPL.htm . This looks like the Mozilla Public License. Can you specify the differences between your license and the MPL, please? If they are small, can you consider using the MPL instead? -- They tried to pierce your heartJohn Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you wouldhttp://www.reutershealth.com become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord. --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
A private mail drew to my attention the following sentence in Section 7 of the GPLv2: For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by *all* those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. (Emphasis added.) Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible. But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed to practice patent P royalty-free (etc. etc.) except for the notorious Richard Stallman. Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me, without doubt; but is the presence of a single legal disability in a whole nation (and it doesn't have to be patent-based; any kind of disability will do) grounds to withhold free software from the rest? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: making public domain dedication safer
Alex Rousskov scripsit: Or is the legal world so badly broken that it is practically impossible to reliably place software in public domain? Pretty much. Dedications to the public domain have been rare to nonexistent in the past, and nobody is quite sure whether they can actually be achieved or not in any one jurisdiction, much less across all jurisdictions. Much safer to make use of the well-established mechanism of licensing, using some machinery such as the MIT, BSD, or AFL licenses. In general, it is not surprising to find a lack of legal machinery for doing what until now very few people have wanted to do. Until 1976, it was trivial to keep documents out of copyright in the U.S. -- just publish them without a copyright notice. Do I have to release two derivative versions of the same software, one in PD and one OSI licensed (the derivation would be the change of the licensing file or source file headers, for example)?? If you must, but it seems unnecessary to me just to make a point about the evils of copyright. Evil or not, we're stuck with it under the current worldwide regime, where to a first approximation everything is in copyright. -- No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com internal links in forms which are hideously[EMAIL PROTECTED] over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: making public domain dedication safer
Alex Rousskov scripsit: P.S. If a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software and license it to Australians, can a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software and release it in Australian public domain? I missed this before. No. The software is not PD in Australia and only NASA could make it so -- if indeed they could. The Australian Copyright Act provides no such mechanism, but there may be one in the case law. However, A derivative of a copyrighted work may itself be in the public domain: for example, in Canada a novel remains in copyright for life+50, but a movie made from it would become P.D. 50 years after its publication. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. --Thomas Henry Huxley -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Test License v1.1 rejection
Alex Rousskov scripsit: Assuming I did not, let me replace derived products with derived works since product is difficult to define. I will also explicitly include published test results in the derived works. A published test result is a derived work, right? No, at least generally not. When you compile a program with the GPL-licensed GCC, the resulting binary is not a derivative work of GCC. You are still trying to make a copyright-based license do the work of a trademark, and it just won't. -- I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] before our very window. Does he think that http://www.reutershealth.com Men sleep without watch all night? --Faramir http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit: That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot, and does not seek to override the law. But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one can, at least within a single country. You need to clarify what you mean by `distribution of GNU s/w to them is forbidden by law'. Can I still give them non-free (or did you mean non-gnu-but-free?) software? No. The next part of your question, `... and if they do happen to have GNU s/o on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it.' GPL does not really apply in most jurisdictions* if a person does not want to redistribute the software. But the GPL is intended to guarantee that any recipient has the same rights as any sender. A person thus constrained doesn't have those rights. * I think that in some jurisdictions, the users cannot modify software for their own use. AFAIK. The U.S. right to do so is very narrow: it can be done only (a) in order to make the software to run on a machine of a type other than that it was originally intended for, or (b) for archival purposes. See 17 U.S.C. 117. -- Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [EMAIL PROTECTED] it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Mark Shewmaker scripsit: I also claim that since the Apache license can retract Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims, that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd code. Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code, it breaks GPL licensing for everyone using that GPL'd code. So, I would then worry that the Apache License's explicit don't-sue-or-you'll-lose-your-patent-license restriction would be a restriction above and beyond what the GPL by itself provides. I agree, and add: The GPL license crashes only if the patent actually exists and is enforceable. But a mere claim, however non-colorable, of a patent can destroy the Apache license for the claimant. (The same applies to the AFL, the OSL, and various other modern licenses.) -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All isms should be wasms. --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Eben Moglen scripsit: A developer, X, adds GPL'd code to Apache, and distributes the combination. The combined code, including the GPL'd code itself, practices the teaching of a patent, P, licensed under ASL2. A user, Y, asserts a defensive patent claim of infringement by Apache. Is the license to practice patent P in the GPL'd code added to Apache by X withdrawn or in force? Is the license as to the ASL code combined with the GPL code withdrawn or in force? I have been assuming, on the basis of the license text, which seemed clear to me, that the answer is withdrawn/withdrawn. Your statement of today asserting GPL compatibility suggests that the answer must be in force/in force. Can you help? I would point out that ASL2's clause 3 does not mention derivative works at all: it provides a patent license only for the Work, not for anyu Derivative Works licensed (under the terms of clause 4) under a different license. Since the Academic Free License 2.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php) uses essentially the same language as the ASL 2.0, it would be useful if the FSF could re-evaluate its position on the AFL as well. The other objection, to the trademark clause, seems moot given the FSF's acceptance of the extremely similar trademarks clause of the ASL2. I ask as a friend of Larry Rosen's and as a developer of AFL-licensed software. -- A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan A chemist has poisoned my brain! http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com Was para-dichloro- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diphenyltrichloroethane.(aka DDT) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit: I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. It's hard to say, certainly. But consider this case: I have patented a gear, and I give you a patent license to make use of this gear. Now you build a machine one part of which is the gear, and I sue, claiming that you were licensed only to use the gear, not the machine of which the gear is a part. Surely you would reply that the very essence of a gear is to be used as a part of something. And likewise with a software library. IANAL, TINLA. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased.--Mencken, Declaration of Independence -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Licenses and subterfuge
Alex Rousskov scripsit: Note that the above rules imply that what you say in documentation is irrelevant. For example, if you write software that uses published readline interface and instruct all your users to dynamically link with GPL readline (for whatever reason), _your_ software is not subject to GPL. Only the resulting mix is. However, a judge might decide that an instruction to the customer to do your own linking was a transparent attempt to bypass the GPL, and decide to treat it as a violation. Saying I can't do this and send you the result, but I can tell you how to do it instead is a fishy thing to do. IANAL, TINLA, but I'd say Don't do that. -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Help with license decision for cluster of similar projects
Alex Rousskov scripsit: - Copyleft licenses maximize the freedom of the code - BSD-like licenses maximize the freedom of the user I think this works better if you say developer, not user. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.comhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For approval: NOSA version 1.3 now posted on the web
Robert Padilla scripsit: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 is now posted on the web: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.rtf http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt I did a de novo review, and all of the problems seem to have gone away. Good job! -- John Cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Perform swift circular ambulation,http://www.reutershealth.com With loud and high-pitched ululation. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Clarification on Using Licenses
Eugene Wee scripsit: For example, I wish to use the IBM Public license version 1.0, and I change every instance of International Business Machines Corporation or IBM to Example Corporation. In this particular case, you can use the Common Public License, which templates all instances of IBM except one, the maintainer of the license. Making similar changes to other licenses is usually not a problem, although it technically constitutes a breach of copyright. The GPL explicitly forbids changing it, in order to prevent the creation of a large number of subtly incompatible licenses. Also, what about superficial changes to the license itself, on the same lines as of the above mentioned alterations? Do these affect the open source status of the software? Not if they're superficial enough, but we can't tell that until we see. For example, using the BSD license template I find that name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors is more suitably replaced by names of the copyright holders nor the names of the contributors, in the 3rd condition. Furthermore, what if I replace COPYRIGHT OWNER with COPYRIGHT HOLDERS in the disclaimer, considering that the former is also used? Gratuitously altering language long established, and which may have legal meaning, is usually a Bad Idea. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a derivative work of software. Well, that may turn out to be the case. But there's enough dispute on the point that I wish you'd introduce an option into the OSL allowing the licensor to include or exclude such situations. The fact that people believe (even though there's no empirical evidence for it) that the GPL prevents MPL-style forking by creating a Larger Work in fairly well-defined situations has been important to the well-being of many projects. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. --Samuel Gompers -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit: As far as I understand it, when moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB. That's what's at issue. There aren't any cases in point, so we are forced back on analogical reasoning. It seems pretty clear that a tarball is not a derivative work: it is a compilation, like a collection of articles or an anthology of short stories. The copyright in a compilation as such extends only to the choice of components and their arrangement: in the case of a tarball, the latter point is mechanically determined and irrelevant. But it's not clear why there should be a distinction in law between a tarball and a static executable. In both cases, it's tolerably easy to identify individual parts of the result with the corresponding original inputs, although these do not look the same (as a result of compression in the one case, and compilation on the other). In short, if I supply you with the source of a GPLed program plus binary versions of certain non-GPL modules, and allow you to do the linking, it doesn't seem that this offends the Copyright Act as conditioned by the GPL's grants. Yet this is exactly the case that the LGPL was designed to handle. And I'm willing to bet that the LPGL's requirement for providing the proprietary parts of a program in linkable form is far more often honored in the breach than in the observance. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: Here's the ruling: http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 Interesting, but I think it's easily distinguishable. This case involves Softman, who bought collections of software from Adobe and repackaged them for resale. The court treated this as a sale rather than a licensing, invoked the first-sale doctrine (thus neglecting any incidental copying Softman was doing), said the EULA (which was only displayed for assent when the software was installed) did not apply to Softman because they had not assented, and told Adobe to stuff it. Here we have collections which unambiguously are collections: the question about statically linked software is precisely whether or not it is a collection. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Adaptive Public License review
Well, I have finally plowed through all nineteen pages of the Adaptive Public License, and here are my comments on it. This is a semi-reciprocal license like the MPL: you must share changes by issuing derivative works under the APL, but APL works can be embedded into a Larger Work (capitalized terms are defined in the APL) issued under any license. This is a family of licenses, with the following optional features: 1) The Original Contributor can choose to license patents (in which case all Subsequent Contributors must also); by default, patents are not licensed. 2) The Original Contributor (but not Subsequent Contributors) can require an attribution to be displayed in a splash-screen or similarly. 3) The APL requires publication of changes, but not if they are used only internally and not distributed to Third Parties. The Original Contributor gets to choose the definition of Third Parties from five given choices; by default, the broadest definition is used (thus maximally restricting what counts as internal deployment). SHOW-STOPPER: Though the APL is MPL-ish in nature, it has a few provisions modeled after the GPL, but intensified in such a way that I believe they violate OSD #1. In particular, Section 3.2 requires that any distribution of Executable code charge no more than the distribution cost. This means that binary packages of the APLed work can't be put on CD-ROMs that are sold above cost, as most distro makers do. We have held in the past that this sort of thing makes a license not open source. Section 3.3(b) makes the same requirement, but only in respect of source code distributed separately from Executable code. The GPL also makes this restriction, and it is a reasonable one: it prevents people from freely distributing the Executable form and holding the source for ransom. (This could only happen in practice in the case of a Subsequent Work.) LESSER POINTS: The license should make clear that CD and DVD distribution count as Electronic Distribution, though they are not performed over a wire. The requirement to make the source of Subsequent Works available for three full years in all cases except internal deployment is burdensome. CONCLUSION: If the offending language in Section 3.2 is removed, the AFL should be passed as an open source license. -- By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall[EMAIL PROTECTED] have neither the Ring nor me! --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Adaptive Public License review
Carmen Leeming scripsit: A Distributor may choose to distribute the Licensed Work, or any portion thereof, in Executable form (an EXECUTABLE DISTRIBUTION) to any third party, under the terms of Section 2 of this License, provided the Executable Distribution is made available under and accompanied by a copy of this License ***and is distributed at no more than the cost of physically performing Executable Distribution***, AND provided at least ONE of the following conditions is fulfilled: (section between '***' marks to be removed) Excellent. We used the same definition of Electronic Distribution Mechanism as used in the MPL. Specifically mentioning CDs and DVDs as Electronic Distribution Mechanisms leaves out other valid current methods, as well as future methods that may become standard. I'm open to changing this, but would invite other comments on how specific we want to get with this definition. I suggest something like including, but not limited to, distribution by FTP, HTTP, CD, or DVD. The phrase including, but not limited to is very useful, as it provides examples without constraining implementation. The requirement to make the source of Subsequent Works available for three full years in all cases except internal deployment is burdensome. This clause (3.1a) was to promote the continued availablity of the Subsequent Works, but we could reduce the time-frame if it is too burdensome. What time would you suggest as reasonable? In fact, I am not thrilled with the whole idea of compelled publication of Subsequent Works at all: it means, for example, that I can't make changes to the source of an APLed application and then email the source to a friend of mine without also publishing the source on a Web site. Indeed, if it weren't for the internal-deployment provision, I would argue that compelling publication makes the license not open source. I don't know if you care about the FSF's certifying the APL as a free software license: historically, they have considered compelled-publication licenses unfree. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense . The redline PDF at http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0-redline.pdf shows how the GPL rule was added to the 2.0 version of the APSL, allowing either full publication or source-follows-executable rules. Both this and the earlier 1.2 version of the APSL use 12 months rather than 36 as the maximum required publication period. IMHO the GPL's rule that source must accompany (or follow) executable is really enough. But this is a topic on which reasonable persons can differ. -- Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
Rod Dixon scripsit: I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor Y is not authorized to use the mark, vendor Y must follow that determination or risk infringing the mark. Doubtless, but it's not clear whether the title of a license is an essential part of the license. If I take an OSI-certified license and change just the title, is the resulting license still OSI-certified? -- May the hair on your toes never fall out! John Cowan --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which OS license should we use?
Clint Oram scripsit: Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are: 1. Enable partners and customers to easily enhance/enrich/expand the product through GPL-like conditions 2. Allow our company to roll 'contributed open source code' into our commercial release. What do you think about the Mozilla Public License? Certainly the MPL was designed for just this purpose. You will need to get copyright transfers or licenses for the contributions, however. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.reutershealth.com Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U. --K.X.U. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit: We now want to change the license from part of the product to another one that states: 1. our software is and will ever be open-source 2. their software can have any license they want 3. they cannot distribute our software to their customers (or anyone else) We're migrating to an annual subscription mode, so that we can raise funds to keep the software open-source (and keep us altogether) Unfortunately, your desires #1 and #3 are mutually contradictory. The principle that open-source software can be freely distributed and redistributed is the very first point of the Open Source Definition. The most you can do is to make further releases of your software proprietary, which does expose you to the risk that a competitor will arise who will make further improvements to the old releases and distribute them under the old license or some other open source license. 1. Which licenses do you think (OSI-approved) that could fit on these clauses? None. 2. In case we want to create a new license, how much time does OSI takes to approve it? We have now a deadline (well, everybody does! ;-)). The delay is very variable, but no open-source license can do what you want. 3. If we take an already-approved license, like (just example) mozilla one, must we keep the license exactly as it is (with all references to mozilla), or can we replace the mozilla one by our product's name? The MPL explicitly provides for you to do that. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Alex Rousskov scripsit: Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), Release in the sense that they will provide those sources to paying (subscribing) customers only, who are forbidden to pass them along. seems to me that a competitor would have to do much more to survive the competition than simply apply an OSI-approved license to your old sources... An Apache-style effort, a consortium of the customers, would probably be quite successful. This is all assuming that this isn't just beating the air, that there actually is a commercial demand for the VM. -- John Cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law in his own words -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much sense. We have so many licenses because of the Not Invented Here principle: lawyers don't want to adopt the work of other lawyers as is, because how could they justify their fees then? We really need only about two licenses: a reciprocal one and a non-reciprocal one. Perhaps we also need one that is reciprocal as to the code itself, but not as to larger works in which the code is embedded. -- There are three kinds of people in the world: John Cowan those who can count,http://www.reutershealth.com and those who can't.[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Chuck Swiger scripsit: The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing. A tricky example, actually, since the Sleepycat license is reciprocal: you have to provide freely redistributable source to your applications that use Berkeley DB, unless you buy a commercial license from Sleepycat. It's much more like the GPL, though without the derivatives under GPL only provision. Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a problem? I see two problems: 1) Developer confusion. With lots of licenses, it's hard to juggle the rules in your head, and especially to know if you can create joint derivatives of software under license A with software under license B. 2) Partition of the commons. The GPL creates a commons of software: programs that make use of GPL software have to stay within the commons. The OSL does the same, but incompatibly with the GPL (in the opinion of the people promulgating the GPL, at any rate). You can't mix'n'match GPL and OSL components. The non-reciprocal licenses don't cause a problem in this case, since they cross all boundaries. If so, efforts to create license templates with a range of choices which result in OSI Open Source-compatible terms, such as the Creative Commons licenses, seem to be a good idea. A similar effort could be made to coalesce BSD-like licenses, GPL-derived licenses, and perhaps others (the MPL?). Alas, you run up against Not Invented Here. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit: But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly distribution-limited: http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm Simple. Their license is *not* OSI certified and they are misusing the logo under false pretenses. (Their proprietary product includes open-source components, but that's of course not enough.) So, what's the magic here? Have our lawyer send a cease-and-desist letter. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Forked books?
So is it true that Rosen on Open Source Law and Dixon on Open Source Law are the result of a fork? -- All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan that cooks with lard and goose fat, the partwww.ccil.org/~cowan that cooks with olive oil, and the part thatwww.reutershealth.com cooks with butter. -- David Chessler[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: 1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on having files with identical content but different licenses? If you are the copyright owner, you can issue as many licenses as you please, and there is no conflict, any more than there is conflict when you let some people borrow your car but not others. 2. I'm uncomfortable with making contributors assign copyright to me, just so I can dual-license. Would it be sufficient to get them to send me a form email stating that they agree their contribution will be dual-licensed? Unless you anticipate having to sue someone, it is sufficient if they license their works to you under a non-restrictive license such as the AFL. 3. Any GPL-compatible commercial license templates I can look at? Especially those that are clear and short. GPL-compatibility is not an issue. In the nature of things, commercial licenses are typically specific to a commercial relationship, and you really want a lawyer to write you one that suits your purposes. 4. The GPL obviously doesn't prohibit commercial activity on top of the software, since Red Hat et. al. use services as a commercial model. Is there any OSI-certified license that would either encourage or compel commercial activity to have to use a different, commercial license? E.g. I note that the mySQL site phrases this as quid pro quo but not an enforceable requirement. There isn't and can't be any compulsion, because the OSD forbids it. For example, the Affero GPL tries to close the hole where someone uses the software to run a web service but then keeps the modifications private. But I don't see that the Affero GPL has been OSI-certified. AFAIK no one has ever submitted it. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and his majesty. --Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves scripsit: Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. It isn't closed-source, though. Anyone can clone it, and some people have. -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years agohttp://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: free Re: Dual licensing
Chris F Clark scripsit: What part of OSD#6 prevents someone for charging to license the software to one group and give the software away for free to another as long as the same open source license is made available to both? I'd say it complies. -- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place, The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace, We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall, So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. I think there is room to at least doubt it. Proprietary software companies uniformly take the view that because the software has not been sold to you (it says so right on the shrink-wrap), you have neither ownership nor possession but at best natural detention of it, and the only thing separating you (who have plonked down for it) from an outright thief is the license. (I suppose your ownership of the *medium* is undisputed, but that's a different matter.) Therefore, you have no rights except what the license gives you, and in particular the first-sale rule does not apply (since there has been no sale at all). They would hardly bother with this machinery if the mere act of providing a license were enough. No, they have to deny you the iure proprietatis altogether. the default rules Rick mentions would apply to a work like a book, which is not customarily distributed with a license. But it is customarily sold. Then lands were fairly portioned; Then spoils were fairly sold: The Romans were like brothers In the brave days of old. Now Roman is to Roman More hateful than a foe, And the Tribunes beard the high, And the Fathers grind the low. --Macaulay, _Lays of Ancient Rome_ -- [W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith www.ccil.org/~cowan in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Rick Moen scripsit: With rare exceptions, if you use a licence other than BSD (new or old), MIT/X, GPL, LGPL, MPL, CPL, AFL, OSL, you're probably dooming your project to gratuitous and pointless licence incompatibility with third-party codebases and ensuring that it will be ignored by the very developers you're trying to reach by adopting open source. I did a little research at Sourceforge and Freshmeat, looking at licenses (excluding the non-FLOSS ones at Sourceforge). First of all, the GPL has about 70% of the projects, so let's leave it out so that the contrasts between other licenses become clearer. Averaging the two sites together, we get the following: 32% LGPL 31% BSD (old or new) 5% MIT/X 5% MPL 2% CPL or IBM 1% OSL 1% AFL Licenses you didn't mention: 8% Artistic or Perl 5% Apache (any version) 1% Qt 1% zlib/libpng 8% all others (none more than 1% individually) -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Chuck Swiger scripsit: Agreed. For example, Apple has taken the GNU chess program and added a different graphic front-end to make the Chess application run without using X11 under MacOS X. Are Apple's changes to GNU chess original enough to qualify as a derivative work? I think John is correct: probably not. I don't know anything about that particular example: whether it is trivial would depend on the structure of GNU Chess, about which I know nothing. But it might fall under the special exception that permits making derivative works of software for the purpose of getting them to run on your computer. Presumably this can be done by a third party, Apple in this case, as well as by the owner of the computer. But if you look at the ~100 files which comprise an apache-1.3.xx distribution (to pick a project for the sake of example), there are strong connections between these files in terms of header file dependencies, the presence of a unified build environment resulting from GNU autoconf and the resulting Makefiles, etc. If you examine the short stories in a theme anthology, there may be strong connections between them too (and the stronger the connection, the stronger the copyright available on the collective work as such). But a theme anthology is still a collective work, just as much as a CD full of shovelware is. -- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] free-range chickens (except they have http://www.reutershealth.com teeth, arms instead of wings andhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan dinosaurlike tails).--Elyse Grasso -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: When did I say no? A binary compiled from the entire tarball is a derivative of the entire source module collection. Of the entire collection, yes. But is it a derivative of *each* source module as well? And each binary module compiled from each of its modules is a derivative of its own individual source module. Clearly. The real question I'm posing is: By doing this (these) compilations of a source tarball that contains proprietary module X and open source module Y, does the source or compiled version of X become a derivative work of Y? Which compiled version of X? X.o is clearly not a derivative of Y.c. However, is XY, the executable block of bits resulting from statically linking X.o and Y.o, a derivative of Y.c? That's the crux. If yes, then at least part of the FSF's reading of the GPL is correct; if no, then your reading is correct. -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, http://www.reutershealth.com things are just as they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Rick Moen scripsit: I just had a bizarre mental image of someone saying Nobody can safely write songs about mad dogs and Englishmen any more, because one never knows when the heirs of Noel Coward[1] might bring a lawsuit on a theory of derivative work. In a world in which the Commissioner of Patents seriously proposes that novel legal arguments are patentable by the lawyers who make them, nothing is certain. How does a programmer _ever_ know that his work isn't a derivative work, but rather an original work of authorship, thus meriting copyright title? He knows it because he wrote something substantive having reasonably distinct existence, and documented his having done so in order to be able to better assert his rights later. Only sort of. The plaintiff in Feist v. Rural Telephone thought it had written a copyrightable phonebook which the defendant infringed, but it hadn't. In fact, there are two tests that I know of for determining derivative-work status: 1) If you never saw the original, your work can't be a derivative of it. 2) Otherwise, the abstraction-filtration-comparison test applies: we reduce the elements of the work to their abstract forms, removing all particulars like the names of variables; we filter out non-copyrightable elements; and we compare. Of course the answer is jurisdiction-dependent. The reason he can rest comfortably, assured of his copyright title about as much as one can be of anything in law, is that neither he nor other coders in similar circumstances have had their copyright titles denied by any court (over fifty-odd years of electronic computing) merely because they or anyone else merely combined their work with someone else's -- interpreted, compiled, or just sitting there. That turns out, as Kevin Renner says, not to be the case. Micro Star thought their work in issuing a CD full of Duke Nukem levels didn't infringe FormGen's copyright on the game, but they were mistaken. See Micro Star v. FormGen, Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). The decision is at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html and is very much worth reading: it contained several eye-openers for me. Either what you, the concerned programmer, wrote was an original work of authorship (in which case you own copyright), or it wasn't (in which case you have no property interest). Well, yes, you do own the copyright in a derivative work (an important point), but you can't do things that derogate from the original author's rights. In particular, you have to be using the original work under license, and you have to obey the restrictions of that license. -- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half [EMAIL PROTECTED] of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Rick Moen scripsit: Now, avoiding licence conflict is important, and there are often significant issues there, but the allegation (supposedly Prof. Moglen's) we were discussing was actual ownership of code -- the part about a binary being a derivative work of various things. Yes. Is XY.exe, a statically linked executable, a derivative work of X.c and Y.c, the source codes from which it was constructed? That's the question. What I'm saying is that it's just not reasonable to suppose that a judge would say you've changed the ownership of my codebase just by compiling it together with someone else's codebase. Of course not. I suspect that substantively all of this lingering paranoia about people's property being forceably relicensed just because someone carried out such an operation derives from confusion on that point -- Obviously there can be no forced relicensing; it's a question of whether certain types of moves create a derivative work or merely a collective work. and persisting in computerists' common but mistaken assumption that the law is a Turing machine. Well put! -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study with which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to merely observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered, inserting only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding. --Peter Constable -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Chuck Swiger scripsit: Someone decides to use X and Y together in a new program, Z. They write a Z.c which includes X.h and Y.h, and then links Z.o with X1.o, X2.o, Y1.o, Y2.o, etc to produce an executable Z. Z derives from both X and Y: it depends on both and cannot stand alone. Not so. It depends on X1, X2, Y1, Y2, etc. but not on X or Y (the executables). -- Do NOT stray from the path! John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Gandalf http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
